DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-16, 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 21-24 recite(s) methods, claim(s) 11, 14-15 recite(s) systems, and claim(s) 16 recite(s) non-transitory machine-readable storage mediums. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-16, 21-24 fall(s) within a statutory category.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
a value of a metric in the log data is above or below a threshold value corresponds to evaluations, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses comparing of values.
match scores between the related alerts and the selected alert, each match score based on factors associated with the selected alert, the factors comprising a similarity on a type of the selected alert and entity matches corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation ([0063]: In some example embodiments, the match score 518 is calculated using a formula, e.g., a weighted sum of the relative importance of each factor applied to the related alert)
related alerts with a matching score greater than or equal to a score threshold corresponds to evaluations, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses an evaluation. ([0057]: The objective of the Al option 504 is to strike a balance between providing an adequate number of options for the user to consider and avoiding an overwhelming number of choices. For example, if the score threshold 514 is too low, then the results may be in the hundreds or thousands, and if the score threshold 514 is too high, the results will be the same as with the exact-match option. [0058]: The score threshold 514 is configurable by the user, such as by changing the score in a sliding field or entering a specific score threshold.)
The claim does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
computer-implemented method amounts to simply implementing the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
providing a first user interface (UI) presenting one or more alerts related to log data received by an analysis platform, wherein each alert is generated when a value of a metric in the log data is above or below a threshold value amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
receiving a selection of an alert from the one or more alerts; and in response to receiving the selected alert, providing a second UI, the second UI comprising one or more related alerts and a plurality of selectable filters for selecting the one or more related alerts, wherein a related alert is an alert that shares temporal, spatial, or computational relationships with the selected alert, the second UI further comprising amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a first option for an exact match filter to search for exact matches of the related alerts amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a second option for an extended filter set to search for related alerts based on expansion parameters for presenting the related alerts amounts to mere data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a third option for an artificial intelligence (Al) filter to search for related alerts based on AI- generated match scores between the related alerts and the selected alert,…wherein the second UI shows the related alerts with a match score greater than or equal to a score threshold amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
AI-generated matching scores amounts to simply implementing the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
in response to selecting one related alert in the second UI, presenting a comparison of information from the selected related alert and the selected alert amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
providing, in the third option of the second UI, an option to change the score threshold; and updating the one or more related alerts presented in the second UI after detecting a change in the score threshold amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the third option of the second UI further includes a filter to select entities that are an exact match and a filter to ignore entities amounts to mere data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the plurality of selectable filters comprise filters that can be checked or unchecked to change the related alerts presented, and the selectable filters comprising type filters, severity filters, and tag filters amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 7 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the second UI further comprises a time graph for each related alert, and an alert time graph for the selected alert amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 8 further recites abstract ideas.
a time difference for each related alert showing a difference between triggering of the selected alert and the related alert corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses mathematical calculations ([0046]: the first alert was triggered 11 hours and 2 minutes before the alert 204)
The claim does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the second UI further comprises a time difference amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 9 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the second option of the second UI further comprises a topology filter to filter related alerts based on topology amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 10 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein entity filters may be selected and deselected with a click of a mouse pointer amounts to mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 21 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the exact match filter is for selecting the related alerts having entities that exactly match entities of the selected alert amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 22 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the extended filter is for selecting related alerts associated with entities having hierarchical relationships with entities of the selected alert amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 23 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the AI filter is for selecting related alerts having exact matches and partial matches with the selected alert amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 24 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein the factors for the Al filter comprise user-configurable weighted values within a predetermined range that are assigned to types of entity relationships corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation ([0063]: In some example embodiments, the match score 518 is calculated using a formula, e.g., a weighted sum of the relative importance of each factor applied to the related alert, but other equations may be used. [0059]: The partial match entities 508 provides a list of the entities that have been matched, and each entity is assigned a relative importance, which is a score within a range (e.g., from 1 to 10, from 1 to 100).)
The claim does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
user-configurable amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim(s) 11, 14-15, the systems(s) that implement(s) the methods(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-5, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1, 4-5, respectively.
Claims 11, 14-15 do not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A system comprising: a memory comprising instructions; and one or more computer processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising is simply implementing the abstract ideas on a computer, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim(s) 16, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (s) that implement(s) the methods(s) of claim(s) 1, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1, respectively.
Claims 16 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising is simply implementing the abstract ideas on a computer, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For at least the reasons provided above, claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-16, 21-24 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-16, 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests in response to receiving the selected alert, providing a second UI, the second UI comprising one or more related alerts and a plurality of selectable filters for selecting the one or more related alerts, wherein a related alert is an alert that shares temporal, spatial, or computational relationships with the selected alert, the second UI further comprising: a first option for an exact match filter to search for exact matches of the related alerts; a second option for an extended filter set to search for related alerts based on expansion parameters for presenting the related alerts; and a third option for an artificial intelligence (Al) filter to search for related alerts based on AI- generated match scores between the related alerts and the selected alert, each match score based on factors associated with the selected alert, the factors comprising a similarity on a type of the selected alert and entity matches, wherein the second UI shows the related alerts with a match score greater than or equal to a score threshold as recited in claim(s) 1, 11, 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-16, 21-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 7-9, Applicant argues:
“The claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem. Claim 1 recites a specific, technological solution to the technological problem of efficiently identifying and analyzing related alerts in complex computing environments where large volumes of log data and alerts can overwhelm users.
The following features in claim 1, considered together, demonstrate that claim 1 is directed to a concrete technological implementation rather than an abstract idea:
AI-based filtering system integration: The claim recites "a third option for an artificial intelligence (AI)filter to search for related alerts based on AI-generated match scores," which represents a specific technological implementation of machine learning technology to solve the problem of alert correlation in monitoring systems.
Multi-modal filtering architecture: The claim recites three distinct, interrelated filtering options (exact match, extended filter set, and AI filter) that work together within a unified user interface system, providing a sophisticated technological approach to alert management rather than a mere abstract concept.
Structured alert correlation framework: The claim recites "one or more related alerts and a plurality of selectable filters for selecting the one or more related alerts, wherein a related alert is an alert that shares temporal, spatial, or computational relationships with the selected alert," which defines a specific technical structure for organizing and relating alerts based on concrete relationship types.
Dynamic user interface adaptation: The claim recites providing different UIs (first UI and second UI) with different functionalities based on user interaction, demonstrating a specific technical implementation of responsive user interface technology.
Comparative analysis functionality: The claim recites "in response to detecting a selection of one related alert in the second UI, presenting a comparison of information from the selected related alert and the selected alert," which provides a specific technical feature for enabling efficient alert analysis.
Factor-based scoring system: The claim recites "each match score based on factors associated with the selected alert, the factors comprising a similarity on a type of the selected alert and entity matches," which describes a specific technical implementation of multi-factor analysis for AI-based correlation.
These features, taken as a whole, describe a specific technological system for alert management and analysis, not an abstract mathematical concept. The claim is analogous to the claims in Thales where the Federal Circuit held that claims to "a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object" did not merely recite an abstract idea. 850 F.3d at 1348-49.
The claims address a technological problem with a technological solution. As described in the specification (e.g., paragraphs [0002]-[0004]), the claimed invention addresses the technological problem faced by engineers and analysts who must troubleshoot issues in production environments where the volume of alerts and signals can be overwhelming. The specification explains that "troubleshooting often requires expertise, as the amount of information available to troubleshoot may be overwhelming."
The solution in claim 1 offers a specific technological approach by introducing an AI-based filtering system designed to intelligently correlate related alerts. Claim 1 includes multiple filtering modes that are optimized for various use cases, ensuring adaptability to different scenarios. Furthermore, claim 1 features a structured user interface, facilitating efficient navigation through complex alert relationships.
This is precisely the type of technological improvement that the Federal Circuit has found to be patent-eligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to improvement in computer functionality are not directed to abstract idea).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improving alert analysis due to information overload of users addresses an analysis problem faced by humans, not a technological problem, and amounts to improving abstract ideas. Applicant’s arguments citing [0002]-[0004] further emphasize that the claim addresses an analysis problem faced by humans, rather than a technological problem. Furthermore, the claims do not address a technological problem with a technical solution. AI-based filtering system integration amounts to using a computer to perform the abstract ideas. A multi-modal filtering architecture where the three filtering methods work together is not reflected in the claims. The structured alert correlation is merely using abstract ideas to determine relationships in data. The user interface merely changes the presentation of results of abstract ideas based on user selection, which does not reflect any dynamic adaptation and amounts to mere data output. Comparative analysis functionality merely presents results of abstract ideas, which amounts to mere data output. The factor-based scoring system further describes details of the abstract ideas being performed using AI. Application of the filtering modes to specific use cases or scenarios are not reflected in the claim. Facilitating efficient navigation through complex alert relationships amounts to using computers to improve abstract ideas typically done by humans, and merely outputting the results of the abstract ideas.
On pg. 10-12, Applicant argues:
“The Office Action improperly evaluated only fragments of the claim, arguing how each limitation was a mental process, a mathematical concept, implemented on a computer, extra- solution activity, etc. (See Office Action, pages 2-4).
The Office's analysis for Step 2A Prong Two evaluated only fragments of the claim for practical application, which is incorrect, e.g., "The claim does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application" (Office Action at Page 3).
To determine if the claim recites a practical application, the Office must look at the claim as a whole, not just additional limitations. Therefore, the § 101 rejection is improper.
For example, the Office Action analyzed individual claim limitations in isolation, characterizing them variously as "data gathering and output," "insignificant extra-solution activity," or "mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer." However, the Office failed to consider how these limitations work together as an ordered combination to provide a specific technological solution.
The claims are directed to the practical application of providing an improved alert filtering and correlation system for monitoring and troubleshooting computing environments. This practical application is evidenced by the following features of the claim as a whole:
Integration of AI technology to solve a specific technical problem: The claim integrates AI-generated match scores into a filtering system specifically designed to address the problem of identifying related alerts in complex monitoring environments. This is directly analogous to Ex Parte Desjardins, where the Appeals Review Panel found that claims to training a machine learning model integrated the mathematical concepts into a practical application by addressing the technical problem of "catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning systems. Similarly, here, the AI filter addresses the technical problem of alert correlation in monitoring systems.
Multi-modal filtering architecture providing technological flexibility: The claim recites three distinct filtering options (exact match, extended filter set, and AI filter) that work together to provide users with different technological approaches to alert correlation. This structured combination provides a specific technological solution, not a mere abstract concept. As the specification explains (e.g., paragraph [0023]), each mode serves a different technical purpose: exact match for precision, extended match for hierarchical relationships, and AI match for intelligent correlation.
Specific technical implementation of user interface technology: The claim recites the provision of first and second UIs with specific functionalities and structures, including selectable filters, alert presentation based on match scores and thresholds, and comparative analysis features. This represents a specific technical implementation of user interface technology for alert management, similar to the improvements in Enfish and DDR Holdings.
Integrated comparative analysis functionality: The claim recites "in response to detecting a selection of one related alert in the second UI, presenting a comparison of information from the selected related alert and the selected alert," which provides interactive functionality that enables efficient technical analysis within the system.
Structured alert correlation based on temporal, spatial, and computational relationships: The claim recites that "a related alert is an alert that shares temporal, spatial, or computational relationships with the selected alert," which defines a specific technical framework for alert correlation that goes beyond mere mathematical calculations.
Factor-based AI scoring integrated with type similarity and entity matching: The claim recites "each match score based on factors associated with the selected alert, the factors comprising a similarity on a type of the selected alert and entity matches," which describes a specific technical implementation of multi-factor AI- based correlation tailored to the alert monitoring domain.
These limitations, considered together as an ordered combination, demonstrate that the
claim is directed to a specific technological implementation that improves the functioning of alert monitoring and analysis systems.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the claims improve alert analysis performed by humans, rather than improving alert monitoring and analysis systems. The claim merely applies AI technology to improve alert analysis, which improves abstract ideas in order to address an analysis problem faced by humans and does not solve a technical problem such as "catastrophic forgetting" in continual learning systems. A multi-modal filtering architecture where the three filtering methods work together is not reflected in the claims. The individual purposes of each filtering method improves alert analysis, which only improves abstract ideas. The user interface merely changes the presentation of results of abstract ideas based on user selection, which amounts to mere data output. Comparative analysis functionality merely presents results of abstract ideas, which does not improve analysis efficiency and amounts to mere data output. The structured alert correlation is merely using abstract ideas to determine relationships in data. The factor-based scoring system further describes details of the abstract ideas being performed using AI.
On pg. 12-13, Applicant argues:
“Also, the claims reflect improvements to technology. The specification describes multiple technological improvements provided by the claimed invention, such as improved alert correlation efficiency (e.g., "identifies relevant signals associated with a given event (e.g., an alert), facilitating efficient analysis and decision-making for problem resolution" in paragraph [0020]); reduction in information overload (e.g.,. "the amount of information available to troubleshoot may be overwhelming," paragraph [0004]); customizable correlation parameters (e.g.,. "the filtering tool allows for the customization of correlation parameters to effectively capture desired information," paragraph [0021]); multiple filtering modes for different use cases; and AI- based intelligent correlation (e.g., "utilizes artificial intelligence to select events related to the problem being investigated" and strikes "a balance between providing an adequate number of options for the user to consider and avoiding an overwhelming number of choices," paragraphs [0023] and [0057]-[0058]).
These improvements are analogous to those recognized in Ex Parte Desjardins, where the Appeals Review Panel credited improvements including "reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes" as technological improvements. Similarly, here, the claimed system provides reduced cognitive load on users, improved efficiency in alert analysis, and streamlined troubleshooting workflows.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not reflect improvements in technology, and instead reflects improvements in abstract ideas. Different use cases is not reflected in the claim. The remaining cited improvements are all improvements to alert analysis to address information overload, which amounts to improving abstract ideas to address an analysis problem faced by humans.
On pg. 13-14, Applicant argues:
As in Desjardins, the claim itself reflects these improvements. The claim includes the specific components that provide the described improvements: the multi-modal filtering architecture, the AI-based scoring system, the threshold-based presentation mechanism, and the comparative analysis functionality.
Relevant case law supports patent eligibility. Claim 1 is analogous to several cases where courts have found claims to be directed to patent-eligible improvements in technology:
Ex Parte Desjardins (AI/ML improvements): As discussed above, the Appeals Review Panel found that claims to training a machine learning model were patent- eligible where they addressed a specific technical problem (catastrophic forgetting) and provided technological improvements (reduced storage, reduced complexity, preserved performance). Similarly, the claims here address the specific technical problem of alert correlation in monitoring systems and provide technological improvements through AI-based intelligent filtering.
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. (specific technological implementation): The Federal Circuit found claims to an automatic lip synchronization patent-eligible because they recited a specific technological solution rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution. 837 F.3d at 1314-15. Similarly, the claims here recite a specific technological implementation of alert filtering using multiple modes, AI-based scoring, and structured user interfaces, rather than merely claiming the idea of filtering alerts.
BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (technological solution): The Federal Circuit found claims to a content filtering system patent- eligible where they recited a "technology based solution" that overcame the disadvantages of prior art systems. 827 F.3d at 1350-51. Similarly, the claims here recite a technology-based solution to the problem of alert correlation that overcomes the disadvantages of being overwhelmed by information.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not reflect any improvements in AI, and instead uses AI to perform abstract ideas. Alert filtering of alert analysis is not a technological solution, and instead amounts to mere data output. Overcoming the disadvantage of being overwhelmed by information for alert analysis does not provide a technological solution to a technical problem, and instead improves abstract ideas.
On pg. 14, Applicant argues:
The claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than any judicial exception. The combination of features in claim 1 amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because the features recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into patent- eligible subject matter. For example, the integration of AI-generated match scores with multiple filtering modes and configurable thresholds represents a novel approach to alert management that is not conventional or routine. Also, the combination of exact match, extended match, and AI-based filtering modes within a single integrated system is unconventional and provides significant technical advantages.
Claim 1 provides detailed descriptions of the system's operation, which includes the structure of the second user interface featuring multiple filtering options. This is followed by a presentation mechanism that operates on a threshold basis. Additionally, the system employs an AI scoring methodology that relies on factors such as type similarity and entity matches. It also incorporates a functionality for comparative analysis. Furthermore, the system integrates relationship-based alert correlation, which considers temporal, spatial, and computational relationships.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity.
On pg. 14-15, Applicant argues:
“Claim 1 recites several specific computer implementation details that distinguish them from generic computer implementations:
1. A multi-modal filtering architecture comprising three distinct, interrelated filtering
options (exact match filter, extended filter set, and AIfilter) that work together
within an integrated system. This is not a generic computer but a specifically
configured system.
2. An AI-based scoring system that generates match scores "based on factors
associated with the selected alert, the factors comprising a similarity on a type of the
selected alert and entity matches." This recites specific parameters for how the AI
system operates.
3. A threshold-based presentation mechanism where "the second UI shows the
related alerts with a match score greater than or equal to a score threshold." This
recites a specific technical implementation for managing result presentation.
4. A structured alert correlation framework where related alerts are identified based
on "temporal, spatial, or computational relationships with the selected alert." This
defines specific technical criteria for alert correlation.
5. An integrated comparative analysis system that responds to user selection by
"presenting a comparison of information from the selected related alert and the
selected alert." This recites specific interactive functionality.
"When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system." (Updated MPEP§ 2106.05(a))
The claims here recite far more than generic computer components-they recite a specific architecture for AI-based alert filtering and correlation that addresses the technical problem of information overload in monitoring systems.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a specific computer architecture and merely recites a computer-implemented method, which amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. The cited implementation details only require implementation on a generic computer and do not reflect a specific architecture that provides improvements to computers or technical problems.
On pg. 15-16, Applicant argues:
“Additionally, the Examiner characterized "changing presented data based on user input" as "mere data gathering and output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity." This characterization is incorrect for several reasons:
- Ignores the integrated nature of the system: The dynamic UI features work together with the multi-modal filtering architecture and AI-based scoring to provide a cohesive technological solution. The system doesn't merely gather and output data-it intelligently correlates alerts using AI, applies multiple filtering modes, and dynamically adapts the presentation based on configured thresholds and user interactions.
- Overlooks the technological improvements: As described in the specification, the system addresses the technological problem of overwhelming information volume in monitoring systems by providing structured, intelligent filtering that reduces cognitive load and improves troubleshooting efficiency. These are improvements to computer system functionality, not mere data presentation.
- Misapplies MPEP § 2106.05(g): The MPEP guidance on insignificant extra-solution activity applies to elements that are "peripheral to the invention" or "well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry." Here, the dynamic UI features are central to the invention's technological solution and work in concert with the AI-based filtering system to provide the claimed improvements.
The Examiner's characterization of AI-based scoring as "simply implementing the abstract ideas on a computer" and "mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions" directly contradicts recent USPTO guidance on AI/ML technologies. The precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins and the December 5, 2025, USPTO Memorandum make clear that AI and machine learning implementations can constitute patent-eligible technological improvements.
Also, the examiner's characterization ignores binding federal circuit precedent. The Examiner's approach of characterizing the AI-based filtering as "mere instructions to apply an exception" is inconsistent with Federal Circuit precedent. In Thales the Federal Circuit held that claims to a particular configuration of sensors and a particular method of using raw data from sensors to calculate position and orientation did not merely recite an abstract idea, even though calculations were involved. 850 F.3d at 1348-49. The court emphasized that the claims provided a specific technological solution to a technological problem.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Overwhelming information is not a technological problem, and instead is an analysis problem faced by humans. Changing the presentation of the results of analysis based on user input does not provide improvements to technology, and amounts to mere data output based on mere data gathering. Merely using AI to perform scoring is not an improvement to technology or a technological solution to a technological problem, and amounts to using a computer to perform an abstract idea.
On pg. 16-17, Applicant argues:
“Further yet, the Examiner stated that "the usage of AI-generated match scores, which include numbers, amounts to the mental process of using numbers for decision-making." This characterization is incorrect for several reasons:
1. The AI scoring is not a mental process: the generation of match scores using AI
algorithms based on multiple factors (type similarity, entity matches) is a computer-implemented process that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The complexity of analyzing multiple alerts, comparing various factors, calculating weighted scores, and dynamically updating results based on configurable thresholds far exceeds the capabilities of the human mind.
2. The claims require computer implementation: the claims explicitly recite "AI- generated match scores," which inherently requires computer implementation of AI/ML algorithms. This is not equivalent to a human using numbers for decision-making.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The AI scoring amounts to using a computer to perform abstract ideas. The disclosed algorithm in the specification, [0063], is a weighted sum, which a human could perform. Using a computer to perform abstract ideas amounts to mere instruction to apply an exception.
On pg. 17, Applicant argues:
“Additionally, the Examiner stated that "the efficient identification and analysis of related alerts to improve a user's ability to troubleshoot amounts to improving a user's ability to perform mental processes" and that "an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology."
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Examiner's characterization fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the claimed improvements. The improvement is to the computer system functionality, not the user's mental processes. Claim 1 improves how the computer system itself operates to correlate and present alerts, not merely how a user performs mental processes. Specifically:
1. The system automatically identifies related alerts based on temporal, spatial, and computational relationships. This is an improvement in the computer system's ability to analyze and correlate data, not an improvement in human mental analysis.
2. The AI filter automatically generates match scores based on multiple factors and presents filtered results. This is an improvement in the computer system's filtering and presentation capabilities, not a tool for improving human mental processes.
3. The system provides multiple filtering modes (exact, extended, and AI) that work together to enable efficient navigation of complex alert relationships. This architectural improvement enhances the computer system's functionality.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improving alert analysis and correlation is an improvement of abstract ideas, not an improvement of technology. Performing the alert analysis and correlation on a computer amounts to performing abstract ideas on a computer, which is not an improvement in technology. Changing how the alerts are presented amount to changing how the results of abstract ideas are presented, which is not an improvement of technology. Applicant’s arguments that the claim addresses information overload of users contradicts their assertion that the claims are not merely improving abstract ideas.
On pg. 17-18, Applicant argues:
Additionally, the Examiner stated that "the claim itself does not reflect resolving problems, and therefore does not reflect the alleged improvement." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the following features that directly reflect the improvements described in the specification:
"providing a second UI, the second UI comprising one or more related alerts and a plurality of selectable filters"-This reflects the improvement of providing a structured, filterable presentation of related alerts (Figures 2-4).
"a related alert is an alert that shares temporal, spatial, or computational relationships with the selected alert"-This reflects the improvement of intelligent alert correlation based on specific relationship types (paragraph [0018]-[0022]).
"a first option for an exact match filter... a second option for an extended filter set...and a third option for an artificial intelligence (AI)filter"-This reflects the improvement of providing multiple filtering modes optimized for different use cases (paragraph [0078]).
"AI-generated match scores between the related alerts and the selected alert, each match score based on factors associated with the selected alert, the factors comprising a similarity on a type of the selected alert and entity matches"-This reflects the improvement of AI-based intelligent correlation with factor-based scoring (paragraphs [0099]-[0103]).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not reflect any resolution of problems such as alerts, and instead reflect analysis of alerts. Changing how the alerts are presented amount to changing how the results of abstract ideas are presented, which is not an improvement of technology. Improving alert correlation using AI amounts to using AI to improve abstract ideas.
On pg. 18-19, Applicant argues:
“The Examiner cited MPEP§2106.05(a)(II) for the proposition that "an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology" (page 14). However, this section applies to claims that merely improve the abstract idea itself, such as making a mathematical calculation more accurate or a fundamental economic practice more efficient, without any improvement to technology.
Here, the claims do not merely improve an abstract idea-they improve how computer systems correlate and present alert data. The improvements entail a well-structured approach to information management. Intelligent filtering is implemented to reduce information overload, ensuring users can focus on the most relevant data. Additionally, an AI-driven scoring mechanism enhances alert correlation, allowing for more efficient prioritization and response to incidents. The system offers flexible filtering options through multiple modes, which are optimized to cater to a variety of scenarios, providing users with the adaptability they require. Furthermore, the enhancements include a structured presentation format that facilitates quicker identification of problems, streamlining the process for users to address issues promptly.
These are improvements to computer system functionality, not improvements to an abstract idea. The cases cited in MPEP §2106.05(a)(II) involved claims that improved only the abstract process itself without improving how a computer or other technology operates. That is not the case here.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improving the analysis of alerts because a user is overwhelmed with information amounts to improving data analysis, which is improving abstract ideas. Presenting the results of the data analysis to a user so that a user can analyze data more quickly amounts to presenting the results of improved data analysis, which is mere data output. The claim does not reflect prioritization or response to incidents or applying filtering modes to different scenarios.
On pg. 19, Applicant argues:
“Further, the Examiner stated that "the user interface elements and filtering modes were indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity" and that "AI-based matching amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer."
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Examiner's characterization of the UI elements, filtering modes, and AI-based matching as "insignificant extra-solution activity" contradicts the requirement to evaluate claims as a whole. As the updated MPEP states:
"Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality that
potentially meaningful technical limitations are dismissed without adequate explanation." (Updated MPEP §2106.05(a), citing Desjardins). The system employs a multi-modal filtering architecture that includes exact, extended, and AI-based filtering modes. Alongside this, AI-based scoring is integrated with factor-based analysis to enhance evaluation. The results are presented using a threshold-based approach, ensuring clarity and relevance. Users can engage in interactive comparative analysis, providing a comprehensive examination of different data sets. Additionally, the user interface dynamically adapts based on the selected filtering mode and user interaction, offering a tailored experience for various user scenarios.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the claim improves alert analysis typically performed by humans, and presents the results of the improved alert analysis. Using AI-driven scoring to enhance evaluation amounts to using AI to improve abstract ideas. Presenting results based on thresholds amounts to mere data output of analysis results. “users can engage in interactive comparative analysis, providing a comprehensive examination of different data sets” is an example of improving data analysis performed by humans. The claim does not reflect a tailored experience for various user scenarios.
On pg. 19-20, Applicant argues:
“Also, the Examiner's characterization of AI-based matching as "mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer" is contradicted by:
1. Ex Parte Desjardins: The precedential Desjardins decision found that AI/ML implementations can constitute patent-eligible technological improvements, particularly when they address specific technical problems and provide technological benefits.
2. The specification's disclosure: The specification describes specific technical implementations and improvements, including how the AI filter balances comprehensiveness with manageability, uses configurable scoring with multiple factors, and integrates with the multi-modal filtering architecture.
3. Claim 1 features: The claim doesn't merely recite "use AI"-it recites specific details: AI-generated match scores based on factors including type similarity and entity matches, with threshold-based filtering of results.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not reflect any improvement in AI. The claim merely uses AI to perform abstract ideas, and present the results of the abstract ideas.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5721. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM-3:00PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113